452 F. App'x 623
6th Cir.2011Background
- Haley was arrested for alcohol intoxication by Officer Markesbery in a parking lot near the American Legion Hall.
- Haley claimed he had only two beers and was not intoxicated; he offered to take a breathalyzer or field sobriety test, which officers allegedly refused.
- Ellis contradicted the officers, stating Haley did not appear intoxicated, while Markesbery testified Haley smelled of alcohol and looked unsteady.
- The district court denied Markesbery’s qualified-immunity claim on the unlawful-arrest claim; other claims were resolved in defendants’ favor.
- The court determined there were factual disputes precluding summary judgment on probable cause for arrest; Markesbery appealed on the basis of qualified immunity, including whether the right was clearly established.
- The appellate court elected to review the purely legal question under Haley’s facts, focusing on whether Markesbery was entitled to qualified immunity on the false-arrest claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was probable cause to arrest Haley for alcohol intoxication | Haley argues no probable cause under statute. | Markesbery contends facts could support probable cause. | Probable cause not established under Haley's version; district court’s denial upheld. |
| Whether Haley’s right to be free from unlawful arrest was clearly established | Right clearly established against arbitrary arrest without probable cause. | Right not clearly established under the particular state statute given facts. | Right clearly established; however, actual clearly-established analysis discussed; court affirmed denial of immunity on the specific facts. |
| Whether the court should consider a new statutory basis (K.R.S. § 222.202(2)) for probable cause | N/A | N/A | New argument not preserved; not considered on appeal. |
| Whether the district court properly addressed the clearly established prong in Pearson v. Callahan framework | N/A | N/A | Court recognized the prong but relied on Haley’s facts to deny immunity; affirmed on the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Bornhorst, 513 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness of belief in probable cause for false arrest)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (modifies order of qualified-immunity analysis)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (original two-step framework for qualified immunity)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (collateral-order doctrine for qualified-immunity rulings)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1995) (limits on review of factual disputes in immunity rulings)
- Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2009) (interlocutory appeal regarding factual disputes and immunity defense)
- Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (pure question of law in immunity review possible despite factual disputes)
- Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2009) (clearly established right to be free from unlawful arrest)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (establishes contours of clearly established rights for qualified immunity)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1964) (probable-cause standard for arrest under state statute)